Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, AS TRUSTEE FOR the HOLDERS OF the GE-WMC ASSET-BACKED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-1, f/k/a The Bank of New York, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant - Appellee, Holly G. Ashley, a/k/a Holly G. Smith; Michael Ashley; CitiFinancial, Inc.; Betty Lou Crumrine, Trustee; Nancy J. Liberto, Trustee; State of Maryland, Comptroller of Maryland, Defendants.
Bank of New York Mellon (the Bank) appeals the district court's order dismissing its civil action with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have thoroughly reviewed the parties’ submissions and find no reversible error in the district court's conclusion that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the Bank's action. As the district court recognized, the Bank's assertion that its action falls within the scope of the waiver of sovereign immunity provided by 28 U.S.C. § 2410(a)(1) (2012) is foreclosed by our decision in Kasdon v. United States, 707 F.2d 820, 823 (4th Cir. 1983).* However, because the dismissal was based on a defect in jurisdiction, we modify the dismissal order to reflect that the action is dismissed without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (2012); S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowner's Ass'n v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir. 2013).
Accordingly, we affirm as modified the district court's judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
FOOTNOTES
FOOTNOTE. Because we affirm the district court's jurisdictional ruling on this basis, we conclude that we need not address the United States’ alternative argument that the Bank lacked standing to bring its action.
PER CURIAM:
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 18-1474
Decided: May 17, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)